Virtually every week on AOL Huffpost there are reports on some new fossil find or geology anomaly and I take such opportunities to bring forth the six-day creationist view in no uncertain terms. Being an ex-evolutionist & a retired science teacher with 26 yrs experience gives me some advantage.

But in all the debating I found that there are two questions that the neo-Darwinian evolutionist thinkers simply cannot handle. Two things that make most of them choke out a pitiful, poorly thought-out answer to some very deeply problematical implications for their theory.

...they are:

a. In light of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics that matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed, give us observed evidence that matter/mass has EVER been created out of nothing.

b. In light of the Law of Biogenesis, give us observed evidence that nature has EVER generated life from non-living matter.

No one has ever given a direct answer to either of these challenges.

The replies I do get usually go like this:

'You don't understand the 1st law of Thermodynamics.'

'That is not an issue concerning the Big Bang or the origin of the universe.'

'The 1st Law has nothing to do with origins.'

Isn't that brilliant? Are you impressed? Are you convinced that 'just because we have not ever observed it is no proof it never happened."

In reply to the Law of Biogenesis the reply is usually:

'Biogenesis is no law!"

'You are an ignorant creationist'.

Haven't you ever heard of the Miller experiments?''

'Evolution does not deal with origins'.

But do any of the above replies answer either of the two questions? Nope. Not even close. Not even honest. Neo-Darwinians run from these two questions like Elijah ran from Jezebel. The point being that our strongest case...other than God's Word on it, is that natural law stands as a barrier to natural processes causing the origin and bringing about the development of our world by evolution. It not only did not happen, friend...it cannot happen. The world simply could not create itself nor develop itself...by the demands of natural law. Period.

a. In light of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics that matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed, give us observed evidence that matter/mass has EVER been created out of nothing

The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative so it cancels out all of the positive energies. Energy is conserved, no problem for thermodynamics.

The physicists can explain it more thoroughly if you Google it.

b. In light of the Law of Biogenesis, give us observed evidence that nature has EVER generated life from non-living matter.

The Law of Biogenesis applies only to fully-formed organisms. Pasteur proved that bacteria don't form spontaneously in wine. His experiments have no particular relevance to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis did not begin and end with the Miller-Urey experiment. You could say that it stands today about where aviation stood in 1910. Advances are being made all the time. You can Google that too.

If you're trying to put up "stop signs" for evolution, you should at least know what the scientists say.

The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative so it cancels out all of the positive energies. Energy is conserved, no problem for thermodynamics.

Then demonstrate that matter/mass has been observed being created out of nothing. Try it.

The 'simple answer'? What kind of fools do you take us for? We are not talking about 'potential energy' we are talking about actual, measurable, known and used energy that is expended visibly every single moment of every day. The kind of energy it took you to make that last post. Potential energy is only 'zero' UNTIL it is used as work.

The physicists can explain it more thoroughly if you Google it.

I taught physics. Don't try to pull that nonsense on me.

The Law of Biogenesis applies only to fully-formed organisms. Pasteur proved that bacteria don't form spontaneously in wine. His experiments have no particular relevance to abiogenesis.

You are lying.

Documentation: (read every word please...)

Online Etymology Dictionary, biogenesis 1870, "the theory that living organisms can arise only from pre-existing living matter," coined by English biologist T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. bios "life" (see bio-) + genesis (q.v.). Quote: “Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight.”Next:AskDefine.comLaw of biogenesis

"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life. No cellular life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter.

So your above statement is not just in error, it is a lie.

Abiogenesis did not begin and end with the Miller-Urey experiment. You could say that it stands today about where aviation stood in 1910. Advances are being made all the time. You can Google that too.

Sure, but what one cannot Google is any example of life that has generated from non-living matter...ever.

If you're trying to put up "stop signs" for evolution, you should at least know what the scientists say.

You just ran that stop sign and ran smack into a brick wall. One can't violate the law and get away with it.

Don't try to play mental mind games with me, skeptic. Been there, done that. My documentation above dismantles your so-called reply. you flat out lied about Biogenesis. Don't do that again.

The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative so it cancels out all of the positive energies. Energy is conserved, no problem for thermodynamics.

The physicists can explain it more thoroughly if you Google it.

The Law of Biogenesis applies only to fully-formed organisms. Pasteur proved that bacteria don't form spontaneously in wine. His experiments have no particular relevance to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis did not begin and end with the Miller-Urey experiment. You could say that it stands today about where aviation stood in 1910. Advances are being made all the time. You can Google that too.

If you're trying to put up "stop signs" for evolution, you should at least know what the scientists say.

First point is a giant assumption since there is NO humanly possible way to verify that, (remember you need empirical evidence as verification)

What I'd like to know is that if the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, (entropy), then by what natural mechanism was order created?

Abiogenesis has come nowhere and will go nowhere... Even IF scientists manage to make life themselves, (I heard that there were people who claimed as such but they used an already existing organism as a template which is cheating), then what does that prove?... It proves that intelligence was used to create life!!

Even if scientists found a way for life to self assemble from the ground up production, (the holy grail of nanotechnology), then that proves that intelligence was used to create self-assembly systems

The only way abiogenesis can be proven is if they observed an unguided, unthinking process create life without outside intervention.. Once outside intervention is used then that infers "the hand of God" so to speak since the evolutionist claims NO outside intervention, only nature.

Then demonstrate that matter/mass has been observed being created out of nothing. Try it.

The 'simple answer'? What kind of fools do you take us for? We are not talking about 'potential energy' we are talking about actual, measurable, known and used energy that is expended visibly every single moment of every day. The kind of energy it took you to make that last post. Potential energy is only 'zero' UNTIL it is used as work.

And where did Ringo talk about potential energy being "zero" ? He said gravitational potential energy was "negative".

I taught physics. Don't try to pull that nonsense on me.

I had a physics teacher in high school who told me that when you threw an object up vertically, its acceleration at the top of its trajectory was zero. Teaching physics isn't much of a guarantee for having a good grasp of the material.

You are lying.

And you aren't reading either what Ringo wrote or the material you quoted yourself. How nice of you to accuse people of lying right off the bat though.

Documentation: (read every word please...)

Please do.

Online Etymology Dictionary,

biogenesis 1870, "the theory that living organisms can arise only from pre-existing living matter," coined by English biologist T.H. Huxley (1825-1895) from Gk. bios "life" (see bio-) + genesis (q.v.). Quote: “Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight.”Next:AskDefine.comLaw of biogenesis

"La génération spontanée est une chimère" ("Spontaneous generation is a dream") (Louis Pasteur)Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life. No cellular life has ever been observed to arise from non-living matter.

So did you see that word there ? The "modern" one ?Abiogenesis is not an event that applies to "modern organisms". And it has indeed never been observed, it's not an event that's thought to be happening today. Thus what Ringo said is completely consistent with that quote : Pasteur's law is about modern organisms and has nothing to do with the origins of the first life-forms.

So did you see that word there ? The "modern" one ?Abiogenesis is not an event that applies to "modern organisms". And it has indeed never been observed, it's not an event that's thought to be happening today. Thus what Ringo said is completely consistent with that quote : Pasteur's law is about modern organisms and has nothing to do with the origins of the first life-forms.

You do realize how unscientific that claim is..... If you believe in an event that cannot be observed nor empirically verified then will you be willing to admit that what you claim is merely your own opinion rather than a scientific model. Unless of course claiming something occured just makes it a fact.... ( If so, did you know I've been to the moon, true story )

If it doesn't happen today then why is this so?

Pasteur disproved the idea that life, (modern or not), spontaneously generated from nothing... (a concept I would bet began with evolutionary thinking)

You do realize how unscientific that claim is..... If you believe in an event that cannot be observed nor empirically verified then will you be willing to admit that what you claim is merely your own opinion rather than a scientific model. Unless of course claiming something occured just makes it a fact.... ( If so, did you know I've been to the moon, true story )

Abiogenesis isn't a scientific model. There are a number of abiogenesis hypotheses but none of them is solid enough to qualify as a "model". Scientifically speaking we don't know how life originated and no biologist says otherwise. Creationists usually go one step further and say abiogenesis without intelligent intervention is impossible, and that's not supported by the science either. We don't know how life originated, and thus we can't say it was by natural processes OR by intelligent intervention. And we can't say either of those things is impossible either.

If it doesn't happen today then why is this so?

Every place on Earth today that's even vaguely compatible with life is teeming with it; if life originated naturally it would have started with simple organic molecules reacting together, but such organic molecules today are constantly being eaten by already-existing life-forms, and getting broken down by the free oxygen in the atmosphere.

The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravitational potential energy is negative so it cancels out all of the positive energies. Energy is conserved, no problem for thermodynamics.

The physicists can explain it more thoroughly if you Google it.

The Law of Biogenesis applies only to fully-formed organisms. Pasteur proved that bacteria don't form spontaneously in wine. His experiments have no particular relevance to abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis did not begin and end with the Miller-Urey experiment. You could say that it stands today about where aviation stood in 1910. Advances are being made all the time. You can Google that too.

If you're trying to put up "stop signs" for evolution, you should at least know what the scientists say.

Not being a physics buff, but having an understanding of chemistry, where the laws of thermodynamics are applied, I would say you are forgetting Newton's other laws. Energy is conserved, and all energy must be accounted for, yes, but your statement that energy is zero only means that equilllibrium is acheived in the multitudinous chemical reactions that happen in the universe.

But even that is not true when you apply the 2nd law. Say in a closed room at 85 degrees, you mix one mole of sodium, with one mole of chlorine. You are going to get a very spontaneous exothermic reaction (heat releasing), and alot of sodium chloride (salt). The heat (energy) will release into the room and cause the room temp to increase--that is until the room releases it's energy (heat), until it is at equilibrium with the outside. But to say the process is zero energy is misleading and therefore irrelelavant to the creation of anything, let alone life!

aelyn:And where did Ringo talk about potential energy being "zero" ? He said gravitational potential energy was "negative".

You need to read more carefully: "The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero". His 'gravitational potential energy argument' is a non-sequitur because it is only 'potential' until it is put to work and so the 'zero energy' thing is a very stupid argument. That's like saying, "I have no energy in my fingers to type this sentence...until I type this sentence."

But like your comrade you do not come to the bottom line: NO ONE has ever observed matter being created out of nothing. That's why the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW in the first place. You are missing that point, big time.

Now unless you can demonstrate by visible evidence that nature created matter out of nothing then you need to concede this point.

I had a physics teacher in high school who told me that when you threw an object up vertically, its acceleration at the top of its trajectory was zero. Teaching physics isn't much of a guarantee for having a good grasp of the material.

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? That makes about as much sense as saying, "The total energy of the universe is zero". My position is the stated law I mentioned above. Natural law tells us that matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed. But if you think you can provide an example that that law is not a law after all, then be my guest.

And you aren't reading either what Ringo wrote or the material you quoted yourself. How nice of you to accuse people of lying right off the bat though.

And it would be a simple matter(pardon the pun) to prove me wrong by giving the example I just challenged. So demonstrate it by giving us a link or You Tube example perhaps. Until either of you do so then I say it is a lie.

So did you see that word there ? The "modern" one ?

Abiogenesis is not an event that applies to "modern organisms". And it has indeed never been observed, it's not an event that's thought to be happening today. Thus what Ringo said is completely consistent with that quote : Pasteur's law is about modern organisms and has nothing to do with the origins of the first life-forms.

You are equivocating. Give the date that Biogenesis began to effect biological systems. Specifically, at what time did Biogenesis become a law...and do NOT tell me it was when Pasteur and/or T.H. Huxley recognized it as such. That would be cheating.

Secondly, win your case outright by giving a single example of life that has been observed generating from non-life by natural processes.

If you cannot do this then you have lost the argument no matter what else you say.

You need to read more carefully: "The simple answer is that the total energy of the universe is zero".

Yep. And you answered talking about potential energy being 'zero'. It doesn't sound like you understood what he was saying at all.

But like your comrade you do not come to the bottom line: NO ONE has ever observed matter being created out of nothing. That's why the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW in the first place. You are missing that point, big time.

Well there are always quantum fluctations. But I don't see what your point is; are you saying the universe couldn't have originated (i.e. always existed) ? Or are you saying God broke the laws of thermodynamics to create the universe ?

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

About as much as your bringing up your years teaching physics does ?

You are equivocating.

You said your quote proved Ringo wrong. I showed it doesn't. Next time pick a better quote.

Give the date that Biogenesis began to effect biological systems. Specifically, at what time did Biogenesis become a law...and do NOT tell me it was when Pasteur and/or T.H. Huxley recognized it as such. That would be cheating.

I'd say abiogenetic events would have stopped happening as soon as life was established enough to disrupt prebiotic chemistry, so 3 billion years ago at least.And you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with "laws" by the way. Do you also think springs never exceed their elastic limit because that would make them break Hooke's law ?

If you cannot do this then you have lost the argument no matter what else you say.

Don't worry, I had lost the argument from the moment I entered a thread whose first post basically went "Hey, answer these questions if you can, except you're not allowed to give the following answers : {every valid answer to said questions}". That's why I'm addressing your replies to Ringo, not your original post in the first place.

Yep. And you answered talking about potential energy being 'zero'. It doesn't sound like you understood what he was saying at all.

Well there are always quantum fluctations. But I don't see what your point is; are you saying the universe couldn't have originated (i.e. always existed) ? Or are you saying God broke the laws of thermodynamics to create the universe ?

About as much as your bringing up your years teaching physics does ?

You said your quote proved Ringo wrong. I showed it doesn't. Next time pick a better quote.

I'd say abiogenetic events would have stopped happening as soon as life was established enough to disrupt prebiotic chemistry, so 3 billion years ago at least.And you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with "laws" by the way. Do you also think springs never exceed their elastic limit because that would make them break Hooke's law ?

Don't worry, I had lost the argument from the moment I entered a thread whose first post basically went "Hey, answer these questions if you can, except you're not allowed to give the following answers : {every valid answer to said questions}". That's why I'm addressing your replies to Ringo, not your original post in the first place.

Stop equivocating and give an observed example of matter that was created out of nothing.

Stop equivocating and give an observed example of life that generated from non-living matter.

Stop equivocating and give an observed example of matter that was created out of nothing.

You haven't told me what was wrong with "vacuum fluctuations".

Stop equivocating and give an observed example of life that generated from non-living matter.

Neither you nor Ringo have done that yet.

Of course not, and you know exactly why : we have not, in fact, observed a universe being created or abiogenesis happening in the last few decades. You are asking questions you already know the answers to (as your first post illustrated brilliantly by listing all of them); I have no idea why Ringo decided to respond. I only responded to your own inconsistencies in your reply to him, I never claimed to do anything else.

You remind me of atheists who'll say they'll only believe in God if God comes down from Heaven and performs an adequate miracle for their own personal benefit. It's cute and all but when you insist on one single specific piece of evidence (that often isn't even a prediction of the hypothesis you're opposing) that will convince you of something and ignore everything else, well, good for you, you'll never be convinced ! It's a terrible way of getting at the truth but hey who cares.

That said, I am still sincerely curious at whether or not God broke the first law of thermodynamics when he created the universe, in your view. Not interested in having a conversation about that ?

You mean as in 'virtual reality'? (wink) To use as an example of your 'evidence' that scientists have measured a blip which seems to appear out of nowhere and just as quickly vanishes is supposed to answer to the fact that our physical world is visible, measureable, and testable at every moment of time? So where is the creation of matter out of nothing by natural processes? Your little 'blip' won't do it.

Of course not, and you know exactly why : we have not, in fact, observed a universe being created or abiogenesis happening in the last few decades.

Of course not, and you know exactly why : we have not, in fact, observed a universe being created or abiogenesis happening in the last few decades. You are asking questions you already know the answers to (as your first post illustrated brilliantly by listing all of them); I have no idea why Ringo decided to respond. I only responded to your own inconsistencies in your reply to him, I never claimed to do anything else.

but when you insist on one single specific piece of evidence (that often isn't even a prediction of the hypothesis you're opposing) that will convince you of something and ignore everything else, well, good for you, you'll never be convinced ! It's a terrible way of getting at the truth but hey who cares.

Not true when these specific things contradict atheistic naturalism therefore an answer to these problems are required.

The atheist who asks for X miracle doesn't (or logically shouldn't) proclaim that if X doesn't occur then there is no God. Hence you analogy is comparing apples to oranges since these contradictions do underpin the claim that naturalistic evolution cannot have occurred.

He said what I hoped he would say and this debate is, for all practical purposes over.

Our underlying point in this is that since nature cannot (a) create matter out of nothing (by law) and (b)life cannot generate from non-living matter by natural processes that it therefore demands a supernatural origin. In other words, by the Creator/God who made all things. Did God violate His own laws in doing this? Of course not; He created those laws to force man's understanding of them that nature by itself..............................could not do it.

Notice also that I challenged them to give a date for the origin of Biogenesis since they insisted it only applies to modern biological organisms. They didn't give one.They can't.

The atheist who asks for X miracle doesn't (or logically shouldn't) proclaim that if X doesn't occur then there is no God.

If you say so; good for atheists then.Similarly, creationists logically shouldn't suggest that if we don't observe universes starting or abiogenesis events happening naturally that means they didn't happen naturally.

It's such a strange claim anyway. The universe or life beginning are (as far as we know) unique events, something both scientists and Christians agree on. We haven't observed universes being created naturally or abiogenesis happening naturally to date, but neither have we observed intelligence creating a universe or causing abiogenesis. We know the universe and life began, because the universe and life both exist and we know they haven't always existed as they do now. We don't know how they began. But nothing in current science rules out a natural or a supernatural explanation.

Notice also that I challenged them to give a date for the origin of Biogenesis since they insisted it only applies to modern biological organisms. They didn't give one.They can't.

Um, what part of "3 billion years ago at least" didn't you get exactly ?

You are lying also. Natural law rules out natural creation of matter from nothing. It also rules out life generating itself from non-life for there is no example in our world. There really isn't anything you can do about it except live in denial because you certainly have not provided the evidence that it has occurred or even can occur.

There was a debate ? I thought there was just you asking questions you already knew the answers to and refusing to answer questions yourself ?

You are an educated person and you don't know you've been in a debate?

Um, what part of "3 billion years ago at least" didn't you get exactly ?

Um, what part of 3 billion yrs ago did you observe matter being created from nothing. And if not you then who?

You are an educated person and you don't know you've been in a debate?

LOL. Well, "debate" can mean many things, that's why I edited that comment out, it didn't really mean anything which made it a swipe more than a substantive comment. What I know is that I have no interest in talking to someone who has no interest in what I'm saying.

Um, what part of 3 billion yrs ago did you observe matter being created from nothing. And if not you then who?

Oh sorry, I thought you actually wanted my answer to that question, I'd forgotten you totally don't care.I've got to laugh at the "were you there" gambit. If having been there is required to discuss origins then unless you're the Second Coming of Christ I'm not sure what you're doing here.

LOL. Well, "debate" can mean many things, that's why I edited that comment out, it didn't really mean anything which made it a swipe more than a substantive comment. What I know is that I have no interest in talking to someone who has no interest in what I'm saying.

I am only interested in any evidence you could provide that nature can create matter out of nothing and/or that nature can generate life from non-living matter. You gave neither so I am not surprised that you are bowing out.

Oh sorry, I thought you actually wanted my answer to that question, I'd forgotten you totally don't care.I've got to laugh at the "were you there" gambit. If having been there is required to discuss origins then unless you're the Second Coming of Christ I'm not sure what you're doing here.

You're smart enough to understand my point but you're playing dumb. Scientific law is established by empirical investigation and that which is testable, repeatable, and verifiable. You aren't very good at dodge ball.

Christ is our witness to the creation for He was Co-Creator with the Father. He was there. Colossians 1:16-18.